One of the issues I see here Old Pop, is that not only are there allegations being brought against the mother, which you appear to have proof of (or at least enough to warrant supervised visitation at this time in the Courts eyes), in your dissatisfaction with the mothers family now being the named supervisors in the orders, you seem to be tarring the entire maternal family with the same brush. Where is your proof of negligence in this regard?
Also, you refer to a Judge agreeing with the allegations of the mother being abusive? Is this the same Judge that ordered family member supervised time or a Judge of a different Court e.g. Children's Court?
None of us are coming from any position that a child's rights to a safe environment should be denied. The orders presently provide for the mothers time to be supervised, thus, at an interim stage, prior to any evidence being tested, this fullfills this requirement for safety. Should the child be returned with any further injuries after these visits, then yes, the maternal family may not be the best option as supervisors. If not, then the child is being protected.
If the Courts operated on only assumptions of a grandparent, parent or otherwise, or, on untested evidence, to reach final decisions, then there would be a hell of a lot more parents not seeing their children. Including the falsely accused.
As it stands, the Courts do err on the side of caution in the interim, and as such, even parents who have been falsely accused can wind up on the back end of supervised visitation orders.
Yes, for every post here there are two sides to every story. Many people however ask procedural questions. You on the other hand asked members to provide you with predictions of an outcome based on only your side of the story, which as I said, is impossible.
Keep in mind that Interim orders do not always reflect the Final orders.
